Is existentialism at odds with the idea of personality types? — schopenhauer1

One way to approach it is as a generalization of virtue. Do you go off to join the revolution or stay home to be with your dying mother ? Perhaps either choice has merit. Maybe I respect your resolution. Maybe I respect your vision of the theoretical or abstract undecidability here. But in fact you still have to make a choice, and it's arguably more noble to be resolute. Once you've made the 'absurd' decision, do it with all thy might.

Existentialism seems to focus on human freedom and choice. This seems to indicate that we could do and be things at each moment differently than we are doing. — schopenhauer1

Deep issues. Freedom's maybe just another word for responsibility. Even if determinism quietly prevails, it arguably the project of our lives to defy it and strive toward godlike autonomy. This is Becker's quirky reinterpretation of the Freud's Oedipus complex in The Denial of Death. It smells like the will to power. It smells like Emerson's top shelf spiritual cheerleading. I think it's mostly true, and that even 'negative' philosophies are ways of seeing the world as the gods see it. Even suicides are making a supreme gesture of autonomy.

'Existence is what it takes itself to be.' Is personality theory necessarily deterministic ? Shakespeare's deeper characters are said to overhear and thereby rewrite themselves. Your existentialist might have a Hamlet-like frustration with his theoretical bent and decide to take himself for a practical man.

I don't love Sartre on bad faith. It's not the crispest of concepts.

One way to approach it is as a generalization of virtue. Do you go off to join the revolution or stay home to be with your dying mother ? Perhaps either choice has merit. Maybe I respect your resolution. Maybe I respect your vision of the theoretical or abstract undecidability here. But in fact you still have to make a choice, and it's arguably more noble to be resolute. Once you've made the 'absurd' decision, do it with all thy might. — green flag

But I am saying, that choice, for personality theorists seems to be fixed, and isn't "really" a choice. The pragmatic-minded stays with their mother. The non-pragmatic-minded perhaps fight the cause. However, that is not to say the decision is fixed, it just means, for the non-pragmatist, the decision might be that much harder to stay with their mother because their "tendency" is with abstraction and not practical.

Your existentialist might have a Hamlet-like frustration with his theoretical bent and decide to take himself for a practical man. — green flag

It's just that this happens sometimes, but not often. They are tendencies afterall. No personality theorist worth their salt, would say it's absolute. No human choice works like that. They would simply assert that there are fixed patterns that will tend towards certain actions and decisions.

Also, this whole thing has wider implications...

Let's look at how people conform to social standards...
You get a job and work for an income.
You consume stuff at markets to live, optimize comfort, and entertain yourself aesthetically or otherwise.
Your social relations are dictated by these structures (work/leisure, where to find friends, when to do something and when not to do something, time is less subjective, etc.)>

However, there are personality types that will take to and conform to already-existing structures like water. They are at home with it. Their decisions revolve around it. They reify it to a value in itself. "Work hard/play hard... Find meaning in the system given to you. If there is a repair, here's the practical steps. If there is something unclean, here is how to clean it, etc.". Then there are those who can question everything. Their values may be to question any aspect whatsoever.

Perhaps the disjunction between the two personality types are such that the human condition is that much more isolating. The conformist can never really see the open personality types view. They don't understand why they don't hunker down in the given system. The open person sees the pragmatist as conformist and unimaginative.

In terms of the decision to have a child this works itself out as well..
The conformist personality envisions a child who will embrace the conformity of the given, just like themselves. Surely, why would they be unhappy with the given?

The open personality type envisions a child trapped in the conformity of the given. Why should they put someone through this?

Also this works itself in different ways in how values play out...

The conformist personality has less angst in overcoming negative feelings regarding what is immediate and practical, such as work-related tasks. They do not have to motivate or justify to themselves as much why they do something. Analogously, they are more like an animal-mind. Don't question, just do. In a way, it is much smoother way-of-being as the slogan "just do it" is simply lived, and not questioned.

The open personality has more angst in overcoming negative feelings regarding immediate and practical things. They have to question why they must do it, and then motivate themselves to do something that they don't really want to do. Their preferences don't align with the realities of survival and comfort. This in a way, is less animalistic (an existential layer if you will), but produces more of a sort of "break" with existence, where they are constantly having to realign their values and expectations to what is practically necessary.

The conformist would say the open personality has to "get with it" and change their values. This may happen, but with personality theory, this would not be as easy.

But it also speaks to a larger question. Do the conformist-personalities have better values because they don't have this extra layer of inertia to overcome? Does human evolution favor these personality types? The ones that must overcome their own dislike for the practical, perhaps are the outliers.

The problem is humans are a creature motivated by values, and values seem to be dictated in how it plays out in social relations. Obviously, the practical minded will always win this debate in the realm of the social as we need things to get done, not questioned. And so the circular loop of Sisyphus continues...

The conformist can never really see the open personality types view. They don't understand why they don't hunker down in the given system. The open person sees the pragmatist as conformist and unimaginative. — schopenhauer1

There's also the strange case of the talking class and the 'knowledge industrial complex.' Professors do what they can to train the unruly children what can and cannot be questioned --especially (of course) what cannot be questioned.

Here's Becker:

We cannot repeat too often the great lesson of freudian psychology: that repression is normal self-protection and creative self-restriction-in a real sense, man's natural substitute for instinct. Rank has a perfect, key term for this natural human talent: he calls it "partialization" and very rightly sees that life is impossible without it. What we call the well-adjusted man has just this capacity to partialize the world for comfortable action. I have used the term "fetishization," which is exactly the same idea: the "normal" man bites off what he can chew and digest of life, and no more. In other words, men aren't built to be gods, to take in the whole world; they are built like other creatures, to take in the piece of ground in front of their noses. Gods can take in the whole of creation because they alone can make sense of it, know what it is all about and for. But as soon as a man lifts his nose from the ground and starts sniffing at eternal problems like life and death, the meaning of a rose or a star cluster-then he is in trouble. Most men spare themselves this trouble by keeping their minds on the small problems of their lives just as their society maps these problems out for them. These are what Kierkegaard called the "immediate" men and the "Philistines." They "tranquilize themselves with the trivial"- and so they can lead normal lives.

Perhaps the stronger philosophers are those who could stand closest to the fire without going mad, bringing back something useful (something that maximizes the rate of getting carbon back in the atmosphere where it belongs.)

Do the conformist-personalities have better values because they don't have this extra layer of inertia to overcome? Does human evolution favor these personality types? The ones that must overcome their own dislike for the practical, perhaps are the outliers. — schopenhauer1

I've been thinking about a similar issue. Is the fear of death an evolved irrationality ? At first I thought so. One might think that lacking such a fear would reduce the tendency to replicate. But then one forgets the importance of war and aggression. Bees will die to protect the hive, and warriors will risk their flesh to secure the resources of those less warlike for the tribe. Just as there are workers and drones, so are there leaders and followers.

As your namesake stated, philosophers are especially irritable humans, which I read as aggressive or proud. They are introverted warrior types, kings without armies, for armies are perishable. (Sometimes a king happens to be a philosopher, of course.) As Bloom puts it, the strong poet resents death more than other men. So perhaps does the philosopher build crystal castles out of a mouthful of air. His ship of death is a quilt of memes that stinks like him. Socrates can gulp down the hemlock for the same reason the insect that hath lain its eggs may die. The vessel has been transcended through identification with a less perishable pattern. Or that's what the pattern keeps telling me.

Obviously, the practical minded will always win this debate in the realm of the social as we need things to get done, not questioned. — schopenhauer1

Don't underestimate the permanent revolution in the means of production. Wild imaginations and daring egoism can pay off hugely in certain sectors of the economy. You will probably have to build the better mousetrap first, but you fill get yourself paid and worshipped like an old fashion Romantic genius. We need to get that carbon out of those hills.

I really want to talk with @apokrisis about this stuff. Come back, bro.

The conformist personality envisions a child who will embrace the conformity of the given, just like themselves. Surely, why would they be unhappy with the given?

The open personality type envisions a child trapped in the conformity of the given. Why should they put someone through this? — schopenhauer1

Otto Rank has a theory about the artist being a certain kind of neurotic, who has escaped or rather tamed the terror of life by a certain kind of externalizing and universalizing of that crisis. We are gods stuffed into dying meat. Is there therapy and even a dirty ecstasy to be had in spelling this out ? Gallows humor. 'Nothing is funnier than unhappiness.' 'To lose beauty in terror, terror in inquisition.'

We cannot repeat too often the great lesson of freudian psychology: that repression is normal self-protection and creative self-restriction-in a real sense, man's natural substitute for instinct. Rank has a perfect, key term for this natural human talent: he calls it "partialization" and very rightly sees that life is impossible without it. What we call the well-adjusted man has just this capacity to partialize the world for comfortable action. I have used the term "fetishization," which is exactly the same idea: the "normal" man bites off what he can chew and digest of life, and no more. In other words, men aren't built to be gods, to take in the whole world; they are built like other creatures, to take in the piece of ground in front of their noses. Gods can take in the whole of creation because they alone can make sense of it, know what it is all about and for. But as soon as a man lifts his nose from the ground and starts sniffing at eternal problems like life and death, the meaning of a rose or a star cluster-then he is in trouble. Most men spare themselves this trouble by keeping their minds on the small problems of their lives just as their society maps these problems out for them. These are what Kierkegaard called the "immediate" men and the "Philistines." They "tranquilize themselves with the trivial"- and so they can lead normal lives.

Excellent quote!

Peter Zapffe has some similar ideas here:

Zapffe's view is that humans are born with an overdeveloped skill (understanding, self-knowledge) which does not fit into nature's design. The human craving for justification on matters such as life and death cannot be satisfied, hence humanity has a need that nature cannot satisfy. The tragedy, following this theory, is that humans spend all their time trying not to be human. The human being, therefore, is a paradox.

In "The Last Messiah", Zapffe described four principal defense mechanisms that humankind uses to avoid facing this paradox:

Isolation is "a fully arbitrary dismissal from consciousness of all disturbing and destructive thought and feeling".[5]
Anchoring is the "fixation of points within, or construction of walls around, the liquid fray of consciousness".[5] The anchoring mechanism provides individuals with a value or an ideal to consistently focus their attention on. Zapffe also applied the anchoring principle to society and stated that "God, the Church, the State, morality, fate, the laws of life, the people, the future"[5] are all examples of collective primary anchoring firmaments.
Distraction is when "one limits attention to the critical bounds by constantly enthralling it with impressions".[5] Distraction focuses all of one's energy on a task or idea to prevent the mind from turning in on itself.
Sublimation is the refocusing of energy away from negative outlets, toward positive ones. The individuals distance themselves and look at their existence from an aesthetic point of view (e.g., writers, poets, painters). Zapffe himself pointed out that his produced works were the product of sublimation.
On the occasion of the 65th birthday of the Norwegian–Canadian philosopher Herman Tønnessen, the book I Choose the Truth. A Dialogue Between Peter Wessel Zapffe and Herman Tønnessen (1983) was published. The two had known each other already for many years. Tønnessen had studied at the University of Oslo together with Arne Næss.[6] — Peter Wessel Zapffe

Don't underestimate the permanent revolution in the means of production. Wild imaginations and daring egoism can pay off hugely in certain sectors of the economy. You will probably have to build the better mousetrap first, but you fill get yourself paid and worshipped like an old fashion Romantic genius. We need to get that carbon out of those hills. — green flag

But notice, the things that count are creative within the system, not questioning it altogether. Useful not questioning the system itself.

Also, brining this back to existentialism. Society values the guy who swings the hammer and only thinks about what is needed to complete the task. Society (especially those paying for the service) don't care if the guy swinging the hammer is having an existential meltdown whereby he really hates swinging the hammer as he hates all practical tasks, but overcomes his preference for not swinging the hammer and swings it anyways to get the task done).

Otto Rank has a theory about the artist being a certain kind of neurotic, who has escaped or rather tamed the terror of life by a certain kind of externalizing and universalizing of that crisis. We are gods stuffed into dying meat. Is there therapy and even a dirty ecstasy to be had in spelling this out ? Gallows humor. 'Nothing is funnier than unhappiness.' 'To lose beauty in terror, terror in inquisition.' — green flag

Well, this is also akin to Schopenhauer's idea of the artist or artistic genius seeing the Forms and presenting them in an objective way via the medium of art. Art reflects a higher understanding of the objects-themselves according to Schopenhauer's theory. It stops the Will temporarily, and thus we get some reprieve, though short lived.

I'm a fan of Zapffe. Do you like Leopardi ? Discovered him recently. I respect the courage of pessimism. It looks at the world as at a painting that perhaps ought not to have been painted. There's an old book where the gods snuff out mankind because we're noisy and they are trying to sleep.

But notice, the things that count are creative within the system, not questioning it altogether. Useful not questioning the system itself. — schopenhauer1

Of course. Hence the joke (?) about getting that carbon out. We are replicators who somehow woke up within the Darwinian nightmare orgy and saw this as our situation. Biological evolution (along with cultural evolution) became self-conscious through us. This might be because, as warring apex predators, it was overall a good strategy to open up that window. That's why it has stayed open. Sickle cell anemia. A few on the cross, the rest obey the boss.

It stops the Will temporarily, and thus we get some reprieve, though short lived. — schopenhauer1

To me the pleasurepain loop is undecidable. I might tell the demon 'yes.' Beauty and horror and terror. Cacophony of voices. The best lick all conviction. The worst are fool of passionate intensity. [sic]

I'm a fan of Zapffe. Do you like Leopardi ? Discovered him recently. I respect the courage of pessimism. It looks at the world as at a painting that perhaps ought not to have been painted. There's an old book where the gods snuff out mankind because we're noisy and they are trying to sleep. — green flag

Haven't read much of him, but have indeed heard of Leopardi.

Also, I would consider my own worldview as informed by philosophical pessimism. That is to say, there are overriding negative aspects of human life.

One of my many themes is the idea that humans, unlike other animals, have to contend with an extra layer of self-awareness. Usually this is praised, but it actually represents a kind of "break" in nature (similar to how Zapffe characterizes it). This break is one whereby you are aware of preferences and feelings you have that are contrary to that of surviving (i.e. not wanting to do this immediate task related to surviving in this socio-cultural world of ours). Other animals, simply "do" or "exist" and we think about it as we are doing it. We can always do contrary to what is necessary. If an animals is hungry, they find ways to eat. They don't have the cognitive phenomena that goes something like, "Oh damn it, I got to forage again today.. just another freakn day of foraging, I hate this stuff.. This infinitely recursive self-talk.

But then I thought of the idea of personality-types.. That there are some who seem at least to have less of this self-talk and more of the mentality of just "do this task as it is required" and conformity of values given in general. That made me wonder how ubiquitous this existential phenomena of self-awareness is. Is it more pronounced and less pronounced in individuals? It seems that there is a divide between the two views and a fundamental lack of understanding of one side with the other.

The anchoring mechanism provides individuals with a value or an ideal to consistently focus their attention on. Zapffe also applied the anchoring principle to society and stated that "God, the Church, the State, morality, fate, the laws of life, the people, the future"[5] are all examples of collective primary anchoring firmaments. — Peter Wessel Zapffe

I agree and would interpret this in terms of something like a 'hero program' which I take to be fundamental. We are programed to put on a costume and rut and grunt our hour upon the stage.

I agree and would interpret this in terms of something like a 'hero program' which I take to be fundamental. We are programed to put on a costume and rut and grunt our hour upon the stage. — green flag

Yet some people anchor more than others... That they take on the given values to "get the thing done". Others do not do this as easily. Is this natural based on personality-types?

Sickle cell anemia. A few on the cross, the rest obey the boss. — green flag

Haha, nice little ditty.

Usually this is praised, but it actually represents a kind of "break" in nature (similar to how Zapffe characterizes it). — schopenhauer1

Yes, and of course it is self-praised. Voices float to the top, predictably, which praise themselves and their listeners. Have you heard of the concept of Moloch ? It's a game theory metaphor. I think it's great. Production cannot stop. The machine is deaf. Self-cancelling memes are eliminated. Once one grasps 'Moloch' in its Darwinian form one grasps also the futility of hoping for more than a secret handshake here and there (or becomes David Pearce?)
I'm not an antinatalist myself (or a natalist), but I fucking get it. It's Camus' issue generalized to the species.

Moloch explained by a woman who should love me forever : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eF-E40pxxbI

Haha, nice little ditty. — schopenhauer1

Thanks. In case you missed this one:

what crystal castles we construct
when first we see that we are fucked

Yes, and of course it is self-praised. Voices float to the top, predictably, which praise themselves and their listeners. Have you heard of the concept of Moloch ? It's a game theory metaphor. I think it's great. Production cannot stop. The machine is deaf. Self-cancelling memes are eliminated. Once one grasps 'Moloch' in its Darwinian grandeur, once grasps also the futility of hoping for more than a secret handshake here and there. — green flag

You'd have to unpack this a bit for me to comment...

It would seem like if existentialism was correct, either person could choose to reaction and act differently at any moment. That not doing so is bad faith. However, personality theory would indicate no, these tendencies, for whatever causal reasons, are relatively fixed habits for these people — schopenhauer1

It certainly depends upon the extent to which one believes that personality and dispositions affect our actions. And if I am reading this correctly, it honestly boils down to whether existentialism is compatible with (a form of) determinism. The interesting twist, however, is that these dispositions and the actions which result from them are what (arguably) define us. So are we, in a way, slaves to "ourselves"?

But do I really understand myself? Or am I a mere passenger on a ship passing through the fog, asking why the captain turns this way or that, and wondering what he knows that I don’t? - Finarfin

You'd have to unpack this a bit for me to comment... — schopenhauer1

Let's think game theoretically. If a nation forgoes some advantage in the name of goodness and decency (if it hobbles its economy and outlaws fossil fuels), then it'll become a little fish and be gobbled up by a bigger fish that's bigger because it did not make that sacrificing choice. It's like the prisoner's dilemma. Another version. 'My' company doesn't do AI, because it'll kill us all or turn us into pets or the NSA or the terrorists will enslave us with it, etc. Too bad. I lose on the market that demands the next gadgets, the more powerful shovel for digging out that coal. Puff puff black smoke go into the air.

CHOO CHOO TRAINWHISTLE

HURRY UP PLEASE ITS TIME

You can also think of this on the level of genes or memes. An antinatalist 'has' to be statistically rare or he could not be here in 2023, because we would not be here, had that kind of wiring ever been dominant. How much antinatalism is genetic as opposed to memetic is a complicated issue. Are some people wired for more pain and less pleasure ? Would this not make them more susceptible to carrying the antinatalist meme ? As opposed to the ironist meme ? Or be-fruitful-and-multiply meme ?

Freedom's maybe just another word for responsibility. Even if determinism quietly prevails, it arguably the project of our lives to defy it and strive toward godlike autonomy. — green flag

Amazingly put. This is a neat balance between existentialism and determinism.

The first, most basic responsibility is that of the self. Not for its preservation, but the understanding that it alone is responsible for its actions and, more importantly, its essence. But what of the external world? Does that not shape us and our actions more than our own decisions? Why, yes, that may be true. But still, these choices, even under total duress, serve to solidify the identity.

Amazingly put. — finarfin

I bow in gratitude.

But what of the external world? Does that not shape us and our actions more than our own decisions? Why, yes, that may be true. But still, these choices, even under total duress, serve to solidify the identity. — finarfin

Indeed, we are self-replicating machines for converting disaster into opportunity and necessity into contingency. Thus spake the second law of thermodemonics!

I side with the idea that our brains -- cognition, personality, movement, etc. -- are plastic, but the plastic is fairly stiff. There are limits to how much one can reasonably expect to change. Further, our characters are formed early on--before we have enough experience and knowledge to direct the process of our 'becoming what we will be'.

So, having survived childhood and adolescence, we arrive at adulthood in a nearly finished state which will tend to stay the same as we age--with the proviso that we possess some plasticity.

We WISH we could be whatever we want to be. Popular culture promotes the idea of open-ended opportunity change. "Bend me, shape me, any way you want me" malarky. The gradually attained understanding that popular culture's optimism is just so much advertising sloganeering is a necessary part of maturing, but the realization might also feel like betrayal.

In this time of economic change (economies are much more plastic than people) a lot of younger people, I think, are feeling like they got screwed. The seeming good times their parents and grandparents enjoyed are being denied them. This isn't mere mis-perception. Some boats have left the port.

The "secret of happiness" probably involves a) good luck and b) acceptance of what we are. Some people have been lucky and possess optimistic, up-beat, energetic personalities which makes self-acceptance much easier. People born with say... bi-polar disorder or schizophrenia have greater barriers to self-acceptance. People who are naturally less social, more self-directed, more loner than joiner run into biases against them--not severe bias, but they are considered less-than-ideal by many.
Maybe. I am 65% confident about this.

The interesting twist, however, is that these dispositions and the actions which result from them are what (arguably) define us. So are we, in a way, slaves to "ourselves"? — finarfin

Interesting question and indeed in the vein of what I am asking.

I side with the idea that our brains -- cognition, personality, movement, etc. -- are plastic, but the plastic is fairly stiff. There are limits to how much one can reasonably expect to change. Further, our characters are formed early on--before we have enough experience and knowledge to direct the process of our 'becoming what we will be'.

So, having survived childhood and adolescence, we arrive at adulthood in a nearly finished state which will tend to stay the same as we age--with the proviso that we possess some plasticity.

We WISH we could be whatever we want to be. Popular culture promotes the idea of open-ended opportunity change. "Bend me, shape me, any way you want me" malarky. The gradually attained understanding that popular culture's optimism is just so much advertising sloganeering is a necessary part of maturing, but the realization might also feel like betrayal. — BC

Good stuff. Pulling this back a bit, I find this phenomenon strange that we are a creature reliant upon a mix of personality and choice. Other animals some say have "personalities" (more social/less social, etc.) but humans are so plastic that (if their personality allows!) they can prefer things that are not practical (I don't want to do this task which is required to make me money, but I will so I can get the money). It is all strange that nature went out of its way and took this contingent path down this rabbit-hole. The human animal is its own impediment to its own (personality-willing of course) through the very mechanism of its survival (plasticity and self-awareness). Yet other animals don't need this existential layer of struggle. They do or do not. And apparently the pragmatic-minded, also can "do or do not". They hit the nail and build the fence. They measure the planks and the beams. They don't agonize over it. They don't need to conjure the self-motivation.. Although, sometimes, every once in awhile, even they may have to do this. How odd this whole thing is.